Where would ‘97 MJ rank today?

[CharityStripe34]

My layman's take on all-time great players: they'd probably be great in any era if given time to train, adjust to the rules, reffing and coaching style. A lot of those 20 foot twos he took off of baseline pin-down screens would *potentially* be corner/elbow threes.

[tsherkin]

Yeah, MJ did a lot of evasion of defense working off the ball, but that in itself takes a lot of energy. But to suggest that was the majority of play is not just accurate. A lot of his play was bodying up in the paint, and yes he was really great at it for someone in his position, it still required to exert a lot of energy, much more than driving to the lanes. To think that players today are fine in driving constantly in thr open lanes today, but a 33 yo Jordan who was an outlier in terms of stamina and athleticsm will somehow struggle is just hard to believe.

I think you and I are probably closer on this subject than you think. However, what I don't think you appreciate is that the level of change needed for older MJ to exert a comparable level of dominance in today's game is very large. I suspect his raw efficiency would rise relative to what he posted in his own time, sure. But in order to be the kind of dominant player people have been describing in this thread, he couldn't get away with being "just" a 58-60% TS guy. Those numbers would have been titanic even in 2015, but league average is 57.5% right now. Jordan was a 106 TS+ / +2.9% rTS guy in his own career. Even replicating those relative values wouldn't put him as a top 3 offensive player in the league right now.

DeRozan has been above 104 TS+ just once in his career, and has been in that same +2.5 to +3.0 type range for rTS. Using him as a comparison isn't a complete way to look at offensive impact, because Demar isn't a high-end impact player, and hasn't been at any point in his career. He's been decent to good but never an actual elite player. Yeah, we're talking about scoring, so with MJ's jumper and his athletic ability even in his 30s, he certainly wouldn't be a scrub, but that isn't the genesis of this discussion. There's this belief that he would easily translate his dominance from one era to the next, and that's not an immutable truth. 97 was his lowest-impact season since his rookie year, partial season in 95 notwithstanding. It was still an excellent season, but even the efficiency he posted that year is a little bit misleading because of the pulled-in line and him posting the highest 3PAr of his entire career.

It's fair to argue that he would do well; that possibility is still there. But it's nonsense to argue that the reverse COULDN'T be true, that he was irrefutably look just as good in an era with different defensive rules and different relative offensive markers and that without changing his style to a meaningful degree, his impact would translate without issue. And it's that casual dismissal of the idea that he couldn't see a dip in his effectiveness crossing a quarter century of league changes, that he would of course be the best player in the league (moving into a league with perhaps the greatest talent depth in league history, no less) against which I have been arguing.

Jordan turned 34 midway through that season. His athleticism had notably ebbed. You saw it more in his first step than anywhere else. His stamina was still pretty good. But moving without the ball and then getting a lot of stand-still is a lot different than constant acceleration and high tempo end-to-end running. He didn't move like Steph or Reggie Miller.

You proposed 63% TS for Jordan. That seems highly unlikely to me. Even in this era, I don't think that older Jordan would generate that many fouls with as many jumpers as he shot. Unless he started foul-baiting to the same degree that Harden and DeRozan do on a nightly basis, which was never his game. Is it possible? Yes. Is it similarly possible that he wouldn't? Yes. Jordan had some stiff ideas about what he wanted to do and what he did not want to do, as he evidenced with 3pt shooting in his actual career. And again, you're talking about differences in open lanes, but you're also NOT talking about the differences in rotational defense that became increasingly present in post-2008 ball as teams learned how to use the new rules to their benefit on D.

Remember, Fully 2/3s of his shots were away from the rim (3ft out to the 3pt line) and just over 58% of them were from 10-23 feet. He was spamming his mid-range jumper, and that proportion would have been even higher if the 3pt line was at full distance (he took nearly an additional 16% of his shots from 3). MJ was a brilliant shooter. He moved extremely well. But those aren't generally shots on which you generate FTs. He wasn't aggressively driving to the rim. He made smart cuts when he could and pushed for it in transition, and of course he did sometimes drive, but he was finding ways to compensate for his diminished acceleration with that J. And again we return to the whole what-if orbiting how he might or might not change his style of play.

I don't mind if you disagree with the notion, mystic. The thing against which I'm arguing is that it's a foregone conclusion that he'd be just as good in today's game with the game and mentality he had in his own era.

[mysticOscar]

Yeah, MJ did a lot of evasion of defense working off the ball, but that in itself takes a lot of energy. But to suggest that was the majority of play is not just accurate. A lot of his play was bodying up in the paint, and yes he was really great at it for someone in his position, it still required to exert a lot of energy, much more than driving to the lanes. To think that players today are fine in driving constantly in thr open lanes today, but a 33 yo Jordan who was an outlier in terms of stamina and athleticsm will somehow struggle is just hard to believe.

I think you and I are probably closer on this subject than you think. However, what I don't think you appreciate is that the level of change needed for older MJ to exert a comparable level of dominance in today's game is very large. I suspect his raw efficiency would rise relative to what he posted in his own time, sure. But in order to be the kind of dominant player people have been describing in this thread, he couldn't get away with being "just" a 58-60% TS guy. Those numbers would have been titanic even in 2015, but league average is 57.5% right now. Jordan was a 106 TS+ / +2.9% rTS guy in his own career. Even replicating those relative values wouldn't put him as a top 3 offensive player in the league right now.

DeRozan has been above 104 TS+ just once in his career, and has been in that same +2.5 to +3.0 type range for rTS. Using him as a comparison isn't a complete way to look at offensive impact, because Demar isn't a high-end impact player, and hasn't been at any point in his career. He's been decent to good but never an actual elite player. Yeah, we're talking about scoring, so with MJ's jumper and his athletic ability even in his 30s, he certainly wouldn't be a scrub, but that isn't the genesis of this discussion. There's this belief that he would easily translate his dominance from one era to the next, and that's not an immutable truth. 97 was his lowest-impact season since his rookie year, partial season in 95 notwithstanding. It was still an excellent season, but even the efficiency he posted that year is a little bit misleading because of the pulled-in line and him posting the highest 3PAr of his entire career.

It's fair to argue that he would do well; that possibility is still there. But it's nonsense to argue that the reverse COULDN'T be true, that he was irrefutably look just as good in an era with different defensive rules and different relative offensive markers and that without changing his style to a meaningful degree, his impact would translate without issue. And it's that casual dismissal of the idea that he couldn't see a dip in his effectiveness crossing a quarter century of league changes, that he would of course be the best player in the league (moving into a league with perhaps the greatest talent depth in league history, no less) against which I have been arguing.

Jordan turned 34 midway through that season. His athleticism had notably ebbed. You saw it more in his first step than anywhere else. His stamina was still pretty good. But moving without the ball and then getting a lot of stand-still is a lot different than constant acceleration and high tempo end-to-end running. He didn't move like Steph or Reggie Miller.

You proposed 63% TS for Jordan. That seems highly unlikely to me. Even in this era, I don't think that older Jordan would generate that many fouls with as many jumpers as he shot. Unless he started foul-baiting to the same degree that Harden and DeRozan do on a nightly basis, which was never his game. Is it possible? Yes. Is it similarly possible that he wouldn't? Yes. Jordan had some stiff ideas about what he wanted to do and what he did not want to do, as he evidenced with 3pt shooting in his actual career. And again, you're talking about differences in open lanes, but you're also NOT talking about the differences in rotational defense that became increasingly present in post-2008 ball as teams learned how to use the new rules to their benefit on D.

Remember, Fully 2/3s of his shots were away from the rim (3ft out to the 3pt line) and just over 58% of them were from 10-23 feet. He was spamming his mid-range jumper, and that proportion would have been even higher if the 3pt line was at full distance (he took nearly an additional 16% of his shots from 3). MJ was a brilliant shooter. He moved extremely well. But those aren't generally shots on which you generate FTs. He wasn't aggressively driving to the rim. He made smart cuts when he could and pushed for it in transition, and of course he did sometimes drive, but he was finding ways to compensate for his diminished acceleration with that J. And again we return to the whole what-if orbiting how he might or might not change his style of play.

I don't mind if you disagree with the notion, mystic. The thing against which I'm arguing is that it's a foregone conclusion that he'd be just as good in today's game with the game and mentality he had in his own era.

I'm not sure why you keep insisting that we continue taking his relative TS% to estimate how he would stack up today. His rTS% in 1997 was predomonantly against a league that focused on offensive rebounds and taking majority of its shot in the paint. So it almost loses it's relevance in this hypothetical.

All it tells us is that MJ was more efficient that the league average in that season. Whats IMPRESSIVE about about his rTS% tho is how much more efficient he was for someone in his position and high usage in his era. NOBODY came close.

That brings up my 2nd point. No perimeter player constantly attacked the rim in the 90s like they do today. Majority settled for the midrange back to the basket stuff. Theres a reason for it. The league packed the paint and everybody went for offensive rebounds and guys could put a hand out in the perimeter to slow down there drives.

Perimeter players in the 90s (outside of 3pt savants) were very ineffecient because of these reasons. To suggest that these perimeter players would just hold there rTS% if they played today just underestimate how perimeter friendly the league is today.

I dont mind you disagree, or hold a level of skepticism....but imo someone with his skillset and athleticsm would do better than fine today (much more than in '97).

[tsherkin]

I'm not sure why you keep insisting that we continue taking his relative TS% to estimate how he would stack up today. His rTS% in 1997 was predomonantly against a league that focused on offensive rebounds and taking majority of its shot in the paint. So it almost loses it's relevance in this hypothetical.

All it tells us is that MJ was more efficient that the league average in that season. Whats IMPRESSIVE about about his rTS% tho is how much more efficient he was for someone in his position and high usage in his era. NOBODY came close.

Yeah, and his ball protection is another added element to that which I respect. But his ability to separate himself from the league in terms of efficiency dropped off after the first retirement, and that drop was more graceful due to the pulled-in line. it's relevant, because the efficiency with which Jordan, at that age, could score on that volume wouldn't actually be an amazing strategy today to drive a high-end offense. And there would have to be really large changes to his game in order to support the kind of separation from league average which created his offensive dominance in-era. That's why it is relevant, because it helps illustrate the challenge he'd face trying to translate forward with the same strategy.

That brings up my 2nd point. No perimeter player constantly attacked the rim in the 90s like they do today. Majority settled for the midrange back to the basket stuff. Theres a reason for it. The league packed the paint and everybody went for offensive rebounds and guys could put a hand out in the perimeter to slow down there drives.

That isn't actually true. I mean, yes, HOW they attack is different. Pick and roll was popularized by Utah and developed considerably. But 80s and very 90s Jordan attacked relentlessly. And so did guys like KJ and others. It happened, just not everyone did it. And yes, big shot-blockers in the lane helped, but illegal defense rules also limited the kind of rotational defense we see today. There's a bunch of shifting variables there. Spacing, as you and others have mentioned, is definitely a big thing which would help, but that goes only so far.

Perimeter players in the 90s (outside of 3pt savants) were very ineffecient because of these reasons.

No they weren't. There were piles of efficient players. The last half-decade of basketball doesn't make them less efficient, it just means that their efficiency was era-relevant. It's been specifically quite recent that we've seen a lot of the major evolutions which have changed the game to what it is now. In the 90s, Robert Horry was something of a marvel, a stretch 4. An inspired choice to open up the interior for the big guys because 3pt usage was still developing.

To suggest that these perimeter players would just hold there rTS% if they played today just underestimate how perimeter friendly the league is today.

I didn't say that's what would happen. I said that we need to consider that he would have some challenges translating his impact forward at that age with the style of play that he had in-era and that it wasn't a foregone conclusion that he'd immediately be a top-3 player in the league as a result. You have to infer that he'd suddenly develop PnR ball, develop a 3, significantly alter his FTr by foul-baiting in a way he never did during his actual career and essentially deviate from the mentality he himself has espoused as to his approach to the game. There's room for skepticism.

I'm sure that he'd be a very good player in today's game, even as a mid-30s guy, but I think people aren't properly considering the impact of his approach to the game, that volume, and how all of that would impact his ability to exert offensive force in today's league. There's no shame in not translating into an era that's played a lot differently. Lots of great players were great in their own time because their games were well-suited to the environment in which they played, but wouldn't do as well going forward unless they became effectively unrecognizable compared to their actual gameplay styles.

[mysticOscar]

I'm not sure why you keep insisting that we continue taking his relative TS% to estimate how he would stack up today. His rTS% in 1997 was predomonantly against a league that focused on offensive rebounds and taking majority of its shot in the paint. So it almost loses it's relevance in this hypothetical.

All it tells us is that MJ was more efficient that the league average in that season. Whats IMPRESSIVE about about his rTS% tho is how much more efficient he was for someone in his position and high usage in his era. NOBODY came close.

Yeah, and his ball protection is another added element to that which I respect. But his ability to separate himself from the league in terms of efficiency dropped off after the first retirement, and that drop was more graceful due to the pulled-in line. it's relevant, because the efficiency with which Jordan, at that age, could score on that volume wouldn't actually be an amazing strategy today to drive a high-end offense. And there would have to be really large changes to his game in order to support the kind of separation from league average which created his offensive dominance in-era. That's why it is relevant, because it helps illustrate the challenge he'd face trying to translate forward with the same strategy.

This just doesn't make sense. Teams today rely heavily on perimeter high usage for the bulk of there offese and you suggest one of the most, if not the most skilled offensive player in history taking the bulk of the usage for the team today is not a good strategy??

Again you're using rTS% as a barometer of how he will do today, and i'm saying that its not a good barometer because of the limitations the league in '97 had for perimeter payers like MJ.

That brings up my 2nd point. No perimeter player constantly attacked the rim in the 90s like they do today. Majority settled for the midrange back to the basket stuff. Theres a reason for it. The league packed the paint and everybody went for offensive rebounds and guys could put a hand out in the perimeter to slow down there drives.

That isn't actually true. I mean, yes, HOW they attack is different. Pick and roll was popularized by Utah and developed considerably. But 80s and very 90s Jordan attacked relentlessly. And so did guys like KJ and others. It happened, just not everyone did it. And yes, big shot-blockers in the lane helped, but illegal defense rules also limited the kind of rotational defense we see today. There's a bunch of shifting variables there. Spacing, as you and others have mentioned, is definitely a big thing which would help, but that goes only so far.

This is just inaccurate. Nobody attacked the rim constantly outside of Jordan in the 90s (initiating the ball from the perimeter and driving to the basket). Even early 90s' MJ didnt attack the rim as much as the players today. It's just impossible to do it constantly in that environment.

Yes there were some perimeter players that were opportunistic and made some drives when opportunity was there...but you mention Kevin Johnson, even him settled a lot on the back to the basket and midrange shots. Again you're lumping a 24 fga to a 13fga player. It's just not the right comparison.

To be fair to you, there wasnt many you could pull out from in that era...you will have to maybe go forward late 90s early 00s to get the right comparison (high usage perimeter players). But then you won't find anyone near the same TS% as MJ, because to my point, it just want an environment where a high usage perimeter player couldn't thrive (outside of MJ).
[/quote]

To suggest that these perimeter players would just hold there rTS% if they played today just underestimate how perimeter friendly the league is today.

I didn't say that's what would happen. I said that we need to consider that he would have some challenges translating his impact forward at that age with the style of play that he had in-era and that it wasn't a foregone conclusion that he'd immediately be a top-3 player in the league as a result. You have to infer that he'd suddenly develop PnR ball, develop a 3, significantly alter his FTr by foul-baiting in a way he never did during his actual career and essentially deviate from the mentality he himself has espoused as to his approach to the game. There's room for skepticism.

I'm sure that he'd be a very good player in today's game, even as a mid-30s guy, but I think people aren't properly considering the impact of his approach to the game, that volume, and how all of that would impact his ability to exert offensive force in today's league. There's no shame in not translating into an era that's played a lot differently. Lots of great players were great in their own time because their games were well-suited to the environment in which they played, but wouldn't do as well going forward unless they became effectively unrecognizable compared to their actual gameplay styles.

I understand there are going to be some adjustments made. But what im saying is that the adjustments are minor outside of taking more shots from the 3pt line (which how bad he is at that is overblown in this forum, since the seasons where he decides to take more of them he seems to do fine). With the FTr, that will just naturally go up if he increaseses his drives and todays officiating.

His quick decision on offense, iq, his athleticsm, his quickness, his arsenal of shots, his fundmentals and as you have already pointed out his ability to protect the ball as well as his effeciency in his movements will just be amplified in todays league of open space and hands off defense from the perimeter.

Its fine to be skeptical, but i find your extreme pessimism out of place.

[tsherkin]

This just doesn't make sense. Teams today rely heavily on perimeter high usage for the bulk of there offese and you suggest one of the most, if not the most skilled offensive player in history taking the bulk of the usage for the team today is not a good strategy??

If you're not going to pay attention to what I'm saying in its totality, then this will get frustrating quickly.

If Jordan's efficiency isn't able to reach high enough, then running huge usage to him isn't going to be a good idea. If he produces as you were contending, low 30s PPG and low/mid 60s TS? That's something else, but obviously that's not the angle I have been taking.

Again you're using rTS% as a barometer of how he will do today, and i'm saying that its not a good barometer because of the limitations the league in '97 had for perimeter payers like MJ.

And again I say... pay attention. It isn't the only thing I've discussed, just the one on which you are fixating. Pay attention to the parts without numbers as well, they are illustrative.

To be fair to you, there wasnt many you could pull out from in that era...you will have to maybe go forward late 90s early 00s to get the right comparison (high usage perimeter players). But then you won't find anyone near the same TS% as MJ, because to my point, it just want an environment where a high usage perimeter player couldn't thrive (outside of MJ).

Jordan was the only play post-Wilt to shoot at his volume until prime Kobe and after, so you're not going to find tons of peers in that regard. You were talking about proportion of possessions attacking the rim. Then you shifted the goalpost to also include total volume. That one's on you. Yes, Jordan is an outlier scorer in NBA history. But he also didn't play the same way in the first versus the second three-peat, so looking at him as one player across the entire decade isn't super helpful either. If we were having this conversation about younger Jordan, as I have already noted, I'd be saying many different things.

I understand there are going to be some adjustments made. But what im saying is that the adjustments are minor outside of taking more shots from the 3pt line (which how bad he is at that is overblown in this forum, since the seasons where he decides to take more of them he seems to do fine). With the FTr, that will just naturally go up if he increaseses his drives and todays officiating.

But again that isn't a given, which is my problem with how a lot of people are treating him in this thread. It's a casual assumption, but that's sloppy.

Its fine to be skeptical, but i find your extreme pessimism out of place.

I'm not being extremely pessimistic. I'm playing Devil's Advocate for people who don't want to admit that he might not immediately be the best offensive player in the league and might not dominate to the same extent as he did in his own time. I've said as much already, you just weren't paying attention.

[Owly]

I understand there are going to be some adjustments made. But what im saying is that the adjustments are minor outside of taking more shots from the 3pt line (which how bad he is at that is overblown in this forum, since the seasons where he decides to take more of them he seems to do fine).

I'm not going to comment on time machine stuff because people can interpret that in many different ways.

That said, Jordan's effective years shooting the three, those years he shoots the three most often [certainly at least a large part of the years you spoke of*], are the years of the shortened three point line. His career percentage in years with the present (and most of the time NBA had the line) line is in place is not exactly reassuring (0.288477712). And I think I saw something on here that showed a heatmap shotchart 96-98 (and one for Harden) on here recently showing that he wasn't really taking many modern 3s, supporting what one would likely infer from other data.

His full 3 range does look better in the playoffs (especially in the 90s). Add that to the sample and it boosts a little (0.299457995). Fwiw, the full range three playoffs is 0.344947735 but on fewer than 300 attempts (he's about 14 makes above where he "should" be if anticipating hold 3pt percentage constant from RS career ... based just on career averages [at longer-full distance] not looking at volume in each year) and shooting is high variance ... still, interpret as you will.


As I say time machine stuff is conceptually fluid enough that I can see wide ranges of readings of it (and for me unimportant enough that, well it doesn't really matter to me). But that caveat about the shortened line should I think come explicitly acknowledged with any suggestion that points to his higher volume years as a better indicator.

* Granting you might be speaking of '90, '93 also.

[mysticOscar]

This just doesn't make sense. Teams today rely heavily on perimeter high usage for the bulk of there offese and you suggest one of the most, if not the most skilled offensive player in history taking the bulk of the usage for the team today is not a good strategy??

If you're not going to pay attention to what I'm saying in its totality, then this will get frustrating quickly.

If Jordan's efficiency isn't able to reach high enough, then running huge usage to him isn't going to be a good idea. If he produces as you were contending, low 30s PPG and low/mid 60s TS? That's something else, but obviously that's not the angle I have been taking.

Again you're using rTS% as a barometer of how he will do today, and i'm saying that its not a good barometer because of the limitations the league in '97 had for perimeter payers like MJ.

And again I say... pay attention. It isn't the only thing I've discussed, just the one on which you are fixating. Pay attention to the parts without numbers as well, they are illustrative.

But i can say the same thing to you right? I'm saying that his rTS% is irrelevant in '97 since its a different league and that his rTS% would be a lot higher today?

So we are talking past each other at this specific point. So for that, perhaps I was a bit forward in my response since I didn't consider your position the position more closely when i responded to that point.

To be fair to you, there wasnt many you could pull out from in that era...you will have to maybe go forward late 90s early 00s to get the right comparison (high usage perimeter players). But then you won't find anyone near the same TS% as MJ, because to my point, it just want an environment where a high usage perimeter player couldn't thrive (outside of MJ).

Jordan was the only play post-Wilt to shoot at his volume until prime Kobe and after, so you're not going to find tons of peers in that regard. You were talking about proportion of possessions attacking the rim. Then you shifted the goalpost to also include total volume. That one's on you. Yes, Jordan is an outlier scorer in NBA history. But he also didn't play the same way in the first versus the second three-peat, so looking at him as one player across the entire decade isn't super helpful either. If we were having this conversation about younger Jordan, as I have already noted, I'd be saying many different things.

MJ majority of the part played the same way as he did in the 1st 3peat. You make it seem like he only shot a tonne of midrange and back to the basket points in his 2nd 3peat which was not the case. Yes there was a slight shift away more from driving into traffic due to age but what im saying, that if MJ was provided the ennvironment where it was effecient to drive more then he would absolutley take it.

I'm not shifting the goal post. All i'm saying is, there wasn't other perimeter type of players that high usage + efficiency as MJ. And many high usage perimeter players tried to replicate MJ in the late 90s early '00s and they didnt get the same efficiency.

This is my point, the big difference is the league today is A LOT FRIENDLIER FOR PERIMETER PLAYERS than 90s and early '00s. It has not only to do with 3pt shots. Major rule changes in the mid '00s saw increases in efficiency straight away from the perimeter players like Iverson, Kobe etc.. But the league has further matured in there strategy in how to take advantage of these rule changes that Kobe and Iverson would have even been more efficient today than what they were in '00s

This essay does a great job in highlighting the NBA rules implemented, it's impact and why they were implemented in the first place. I sugggest you read it so you can understand why theres been a campbrian explosion of high scoring efficient perimeter players today.
https://thesportjournal.org/article/strategically-driven-rule-changes-in-nba-causes-and-consequences/

I understand there are going to be some adjustments made. But what im saying is that the adjustments are minor outside of taking more shots from the 3pt line (which how bad he is at that is overblown in this forum, since the seasons where he decides to take more of them he seems to do fine). With the FTr, that will just naturally go up if he increaseses his drives and todays officiating.

But again that isn't a given, which is my problem with how a lot of people are treating him in this thread. It's a casual assumption, but that's sloppy.

But isn't it sloppy to think that MJ with his quickness, athleticism, quick decision with the ball wont take advantage of the open lanes today? To think that the team and the coach wont direct and guide him how to maximise his impact in todays league. Just doesnt pass the smell test for me.

Its fine to be skeptical, but i find your extreme pessimism out of place.

I'm not being extremely pessimistic. I'm playing Devil's Advocate for people who don't want to admit that he might not immediately be the best offensive player in the league and might not dominate to the same extent as he did in his own time. I've said as much already, you just weren't paying attention.

It's fine to play devil's advocate. But if you are going to play that role, also ensure to expect and take some pushbacks.

Let's end it here...i think any other responses won't really change our minds on this matter.

[tsherkin]

But i can say the same thing to you right? I'm saying that his rTS% is irrelevant in '97 since its a different league and that his rTS% would be a lot higher today?

So we are talking past each other at this specific point. So for that, perhaps I was a bit forward in my response since I didn't consider your position the position more closely when i responded to that point.

I acknowledge your point about rTS. We can move beyond it, because the rTS was an extra inclusion for the sake of a specific point, not a foundational element.

MJ majority of the part played the same way as he did in the 1st 3peat. You make it seem like he only shot a tonne of midrange and back to the basket points in his 2nd 3peat which was not the case. Yes there was a slight shift away more from driving into traffic due to age but what im saying, that if MJ was provided the ennvironment where it was effecient to drive more then he would absolutley take it.

No, I explicitly didn't say that, you invented that point. I noted the actual percentage of shots he took in 1997 specifically, and that he trended to a higher proportion of mid-range shots in the second three-peat, but did also explicitly noted that he did more than JUST that.

I'm not shifting the goal post. All i'm saying is, there wasn't other perimeter type of players that high usage + efficiency as MJ. And many high usage perimeter players tried to replicate MJ in the late 90s early '00s and they didnt get the same efficiency.

A couple of them did in the 2000s, because Jordan's efficiency had come down notably in the second three-peat.

This is my point, the big difference is the league today is A LOT FRIENDLIER FOR PERIMETER PLAYERS than 90s and early '00s.

Yes. CAPS notwithstanding, I am aware that the environment does change things. I have repetitiously acknowledged this, and am a little tired of responding to points as if I've not actually already acknowledged them, which is fairly irritating.

But isn't it sloppy to think that MJ with his quickness, athleticism, quick decision with the ball wont take advantage of the open lanes today? To think that the team and the coach wont direct and guide him how to maximise his impact in todays league. Just doesnt pass the smell test for me.

And again, if you don't agree, that's fine. But to discard the idea that he might not make the full measure of leap you've been describing is a problem for me, logically speaking, and particularly with Jordan' skillset and mentality. And again, the shooting spots he was using, you're talking about him authoring a whole new style of game, which I find challenging to get my head around.

It's fine to play devil's advocate. But if you are going to play that role, also ensure to expect and take some pushbacks.

Like I said, I don't mind if people don't agree. What I mind is people attacking my position as untenable. I haven't been arguing to get you to change your mind; that isn't going to happen, and I don't particularly mind that. The exercise has been worthwhile regardless.

I think Jordan would be very good. I don't think he'd be 63% TS good, and I don't think he'd be the best offensive player in the league because his playstyle doesn't support the level of ability necessary to do in this league. But I would not be surprised to see him as a 30 ppg, 60% TS guy. Something like 30/6/5 wouldn't surprise me at all. I don't think he'd be leading the league in offensive impact with those numbers, though, and I don't think it would be as hot for team offense in this era as it was then, but he certainly wouldn't suddenly become garbage, that's for sure. I just think that, league environmental differences notwithstanding, he wouldn't be a top 3 offensive player. I think you have to do far too much in the way of mental gymnastics to change how he actually played, because simply doing what he did, he would not suddenly turn into a modern offensive dynamo. That's not how the league changes work.

EDIT: But as you say, that's about enough. Thank you for the conversation.

[mysticOscar]

But i can say the same thing to you right? I'm saying that his rTS% is irrelevant in '97 since its a different league and that his rTS% would be a lot higher today?

So we are talking past each other at this specific point. So for that, perhaps I was a bit forward in my response since I didn't consider your position the position more closely when i responded to that point.

I acknowledge your point about rTS. We can move beyond it, because the rTS was an extra inclusion for the sake of a specific point, not a foundational element.

MJ majority of the part played the same way as he did in the 1st 3peat. You make it seem like he only shot a tonne of midrange and back to the basket points in his 2nd 3peat which was not the case. Yes there was a slight shift away more from driving into traffic due to age but what im saying, that if MJ was provided the ennvironment where it was effecient to drive more then he would absolutley take it.

No, I explicitly didn't say that, you invented that point. I noted the actual percentage of shots he took in 1997 specifically, and that he trended to a higher proportion of mid-range shots in the second three-peat, but did also explicitly noted that he did more than JUST that.

I'm not shifting the goal post. All i'm saying is, there wasn't other perimeter type of players that high usage + efficiency as MJ. And many high usage perimeter players tried to replicate MJ in the late 90s early '00s and they didnt get the same efficiency.

A couple of them did in the 2000s, because Jordan's efficiency had come down notably in the second three-peat.

This is my point, the big difference is the league today is A LOT FRIENDLIER FOR PERIMETER PLAYERS than 90s and early '00s.

Yes. CAPS notwithstanding, I am aware that the environment does change things. I have repetitiously acknowledged this, and am a little tired of responding to points as if I've not actually already acknowledged them, which is fairly irritating.

But isn't it sloppy to think that MJ with his quickness, athleticism, quick decision with the ball wont take advantage of the open lanes today? To think that the team and the coach wont direct and guide him how to maximise his impact in todays league. Just doesnt pass the smell test for me.

And again, if you don't agree, that's fine. But to discard the idea that he might not make the full measure of leap you've been describing is a problem for me, logically speaking, and particularly with Jordan' skillset and mentality. And again, the shooting spots he was using, you're talking about him authoring a whole new style of game, which I find challenging to get my head around.

It's fine to play devil's advocate. But if you are going to play that role, also ensure to expect and take some pushbacks.

Like I said, I don't mind if people don't agree. What I mind is people attacking my position as untenable. I haven't been arguing to get you to change your mind; that isn't going to happen, and I don't particularly mind that. The exercise has been worthwhile regardless.

I think Jordan would be very good. I don't think he'd be 63% TS good, and I don't think he'd be the best offensive player in the league because his playstyle doesn't support the level of ability necessary to do in this league. But I would not be surprised to see him as a 30 ppg, 60% TS guy. Something like 30/6/5 wouldn't surprise me at all. I don't think he'd be leading the league in offensive impact with those numbers, though, and I don't think it would be as hot for team offense in this era as it was then, but he certainly wouldn't suddenly become garbage, that's for sure. I just think that, league environmental differences notwithstanding, he wouldn't be a top 3 offensive player. I think you have to do far too much in the way of mental gymnastics to change how he actually played, because simply doing what he did, he would not suddenly turn into a modern offensive dynamo. That's not how the league changes work.

EDIT: But as you say, that's about enough. Thank you for the conversation.

All good, lets leave it there...i think we both got our points across.

[mysticOscar]

I understand there are going to be some adjustments made. But what im saying is that the adjustments are minor outside of taking more shots from the 3pt line (which how bad he is at that is overblown in this forum, since the seasons where he decides to take more of them he seems to do fine).

I'm not going to comment on time machine stuff because people can interpret that in many different ways.

That said, Jordan's effective years shooting the three, those years he shoots the three most often [certainly at least a large part of the years you spoke of*], are the years of the shortened three point line. His career percentage in years with the present (and most of the time NBA had the line) line is in place is not exactly reassuring (0.288477712). And I think I saw something on here that showed a heatmap shotchart 96-98 (and one for Harden) on here recently showing that he wasn't really taking many modern 3s, supporting what one would likely infer from other data.

His full 3 range does look better in the playoffs (especially in the 90s). Add that to the sample and it boosts a little (0.299457995). Fwiw, the full range three playoffs is 0.344947735 but on fewer than 300 attempts (he's about 14 makes above where he "should" be if anticipating hold 3pt percentage constant from RS career ... based just on career averages [at longer-full distance] not looking at volume in each year) and shooting is high variance ... still, interpret as you will.


As I say time machine stuff is conceptually fluid enough that I can see wide ranges of readings of it (and for me unimportant enough that, well it doesn't really matter to me). But that caveat about the shortened line should I think come explicitly acknowledged with any suggestion that points to his higher volume years as a better indicator.

* Granting you might be speaking of '90, '93 also.

Missed this. No if we just consider the seasons outside of the shortened 3pt line where he took more than 1 3pt shot attempts in regular and and post season...his 3pt shot is not as bad as what the forum suggests.

That > 1 3pt attempt per game is significant because it suggests that he actually consciously took 3s into his game and not shot it out of desperation or bail out.

But again this is not 100% evidence he would be a great 3pt shooter today. But it would suggest to me, along with just his general shooting ability that he would be decent 3pt shooter if he was able to put more attention on this area.

[Mazter]

That brings up my 2nd point. No perimeter player constantly attacked the rim in the 90s like they do today. Majority settled for the midrange back to the basket stuff. Theres a reason for it. The league packed the paint and everybody went for offensive rebounds and guys could put a hand out in the perimeter to slow down there drives.

Perimeter players in the 90s (outside of 3pt savants) were very ineffecient because of these reasons. To suggest that these perimeter players would just hold there rTS% if they played today just underestimate how perimeter friendly the league is today.

I dont mind you disagree, or hold a level of skepticism....but imo someone with his skillset and athleticsm would do better than fine today (much more than in '97).

The stats tell a different story, attempts in the paint in 1997 for some perimeter players:

Code: Select all

             FGA    FG%
Payton      10.7   .570
P.Hardaway   8.1   .556
Sprewell     8.1   .580
Gill         8.0   .525
Jordan       6.8   .515   
Pippen       6.4   .578
Drexler      6.0   .550


Jordan'97 wasn't the best at getting in the paint and wasn't the most efficient even among guards that season. He settled more for midrange shots than other perimeter players. Which had a high value in 1997, but hardly any in 2022. It might be hard to believe to some but Jordan'97 wasn't heads and shoulder above the rest anymore.

[ShaqAttac]

I didn't name anyone in particular, but apparently you took offense to this. 70sfan has made it pretty clear that over the years he doesn't have a particular axe to grind with either player. tsherkin...well no comment as I just think he changes his mind a lot.

Serious question but is OhayoKD like your alt account or alter ego or something? It seems like any time I debate one I'm automatically debating both, and uncoincidentally you and-1 like 98% of the same posts and at the same time and almost never disagree on things.

Mostly there isn't much point in engaging at length because it just results in the same BS talking points being regurgitated, same ad hominems, and useless emojis in almost every post.

If the new gold standard of realgm is going to be this combative teenage style of debating, have at it but I think it's driving a lot of good posters away.

if eni is a teen u must be 5

Mixing yourself in a discussion just to insult someone isn't helping either.

whatever bro. rings woke up and chose violence only to commit full seppeku. mans deserves ALL the disrespect. idk why u defending him

[Dutchball97]

if eni is a teen u must be 5

Mixing yourself in a discussion just to insult someone isn't helping either.

whatever bro. rings woke up and chose violence only to commit full seppeku. mans deserves ALL the disrespect. idk why u defending him

Because we're all human and if you're here long enough you're going to be involved in some discussions that get out of hand. The last thing people need at that point is more people joining in just to throw oil on the fire. I'm also not sure why you think AEnigma of all posters needs help defending himself from a slight barb like "you argue like a teenager".

[ShaqAttac]

Mixing yourself in a discussion just to insult someone isn't helping either.

whatever bro. rings woke up and chose violence only to commit full seppeku. mans deserves ALL the disrespect. idk why u defending him

Because we're all human and if you're here long enough you're going to be involved in some discussions that get out of hand. The last thing people need at that point is more people joining in just to throw oil on the fire. I'm also not sure why you think AEnigma of all posters needs help defending himself from a slight barb like "you argue like a teenager".

bro u for real? mans tried to throw hands with everyone then pulled a kyrie irving. i aint defending eni. Im calling it as i see it. Sir be pulling out conspiracy theories then tryna act all grown up.

[Dutchball97]

whatever bro. rings woke up and chose violence only to commit full seppeku. mans deserves ALL the disrespect. idk why u defending him

Because we're all human and if you're here long enough you're going to be involved in some discussions that get out of hand. The last thing people need at that point is more people joining in just to throw oil on the fire. I'm also not sure why you think AEnigma of all posters needs help defending himself from a slight barb like "you argue like a teenager".

bro u for real? mans tried to throw hands with everyone then pulled a kyrie irving. i aint defending eni. Im calling it as i see it. Sir be pulling out conspiracy theories then tryna act all grown up.

No-more-rings said he felt like there was a rather large group of posters trying to put Jordan down in order to prop LeBron up. AEnigma ridiculed the idea and No-more-rings then replied with the "teenage arguing" comment and things just devolved from there.

Not to be too centrist but I feel like they're both right in a way. There is a pretty sizeable portion of high profile, active posters who do not have Jordan as the GOAT and are vocal about wanting to prove that stance to larger audiences that do view Jordan as the undisputed best. However, this is not some grand conspiracy and more coincidence. It's also not about LeBron as the posters who don't have Jordan at #1 don't all have LeBron on top. They do generally have him higher because anti-Jordan arguments are usually based around CORP/longevity based evaluations but there's also plenty of posters with Kareem, Russell or even Wilt as their GOAT.

The most ironic thing out of this entire discussion is that when you look at the start of the thread you'll notice that AEnigma was actually slightly higher on 97 Jordan in the current league than No-more-rings was. This is just one of those cases to let things cool down a bit because this Jordan vs the world stuff has been going on for a while now and hasn't lead to the most healthy discussions.

[ShaqAttac]

Because we're all human and if you're here long enough you're going to be involved in some discussions that get out of hand. The last thing people need at that point is more people joining in just to throw oil on the fire. I'm also not sure why you think AEnigma of all posters needs help defending himself from a slight barb like "you argue like a teenager".

bro u for real? mans tried to throw hands with everyone then pulled a kyrie irving. i aint defending eni. Im calling it as i see it. Sir be pulling out conspiracy theories then tryna act all grown up.

No-more-rings said he felt like there was a rather large group of posters trying to put Jordan down in order to prop LeBron up. AEnigma ridiculed the idea and No-more-rings then replied with the "teenage arguing" comment and things just devolved from there.

Not to be too centrist but I feel like they're both right in a way. There is a pretty sizeable portion of high profile, active posters who do not have Jordan as the GOAT and are vocal about wanting to prove that stance to larger audiences that do view Jordan as the undisputed best. However, this is not some grand conspiracy and more coincidence. It's also not about LeBron as the posters who don't have Jordan at #1 don't all have LeBron on top. They do generally have him higher because anti-Jordan arguments are usually based around CORP/longevity based evaluations but there's also plenty of posters with Kareem, Russell or even Wilt as their GOAT.

The most ironic thing out of this entire discussion is that when you look at the start of the thread you'll notice that AEnigma was actually slightly higher on 97 Jordan in the current league than No-more-rings was. This is just one of those cases to let things cool down a bit because this Jordan vs the world stuff has been going on for a while now and hasn't lead to the most healthy discussions.

oh u came in late then. ring first went after kd saying they bias and not rational, eni def kd, then ring offer conspiracy theory, then kd posted a bunch of receipts showin ring being toxic and bias in different threads. idt this a both sides thing tbh. eni be mean sometime, but what kd do

also nah. right now they be arguing peaks and ****. most people talk longevity wit bron but this new wave be all about prime and peak and impact whatever. rings being lower on mj is funny tho

[Dutchball97]

bro u for real? mans tried to throw hands with everyone then pulled a kyrie irving. i aint defending eni. Im calling it as i see it. Sir be pulling out conspiracy theories then tryna act all grown up.

No-more-rings said he felt like there was a rather large group of posters trying to put Jordan down in order to prop LeBron up. AEnigma ridiculed the idea and No-more-rings then replied with the "teenage arguing" comment and things just devolved from there.

Not to be too centrist but I feel like they're both right in a way. There is a pretty sizeable portion of high profile, active posters who do not have Jordan as the GOAT and are vocal about wanting to prove that stance to larger audiences that do view Jordan as the undisputed best. However, this is not some grand conspiracy and more coincidence. It's also not about LeBron as the posters who don't have Jordan at #1 don't all have LeBron on top. They do generally have him higher because anti-Jordan arguments are usually based around CORP/longevity based evaluations but there's also plenty of posters with Kareem, Russell or even Wilt as their GOAT.

The most ironic thing out of this entire discussion is that when you look at the start of the thread you'll notice that AEnigma was actually slightly higher on 97 Jordan in the current league than No-more-rings was. This is just one of those cases to let things cool down a bit because this Jordan vs the world stuff has been going on for a while now and hasn't lead to the most healthy discussions.

oh u came in late then. ring first went after kd saying they bias and not rational, eni def kd, then ring offer conspiracy theory, then kd posted a bunch of receipts showin ring being toxic and bias in different threads. idt this a both sides thing tbh. eni be mean sometime, but what kd do

also nah. right now they be arguing peaks and ****. most people talk longevity wit bron but this new wave be all about prime and peak and impact whatever. rings being lower on mj is funny tho

What you're talking about happened after the things I just explained so idk man.

[ShaqAttac]

No-more-rings said he felt like there was a rather large group of posters trying to put Jordan down in order to prop LeBron up. AEnigma ridiculed the idea and No-more-rings then replied with the "teenage arguing" comment and things just devolved from there.

Not to be too centrist but I feel like they're both right in a way. There is a pretty sizeable portion of high profile, active posters who do not have Jordan as the GOAT and are vocal about wanting to prove that stance to larger audiences that do view Jordan as the undisputed best. However, this is not some grand conspiracy and more coincidence. It's also not about LeBron as the posters who don't have Jordan at #1 don't all have LeBron on top. They do generally have him higher because anti-Jordan arguments are usually based around CORP/longevity based evaluations but there's also plenty of posters with Kareem, Russell or even Wilt as their GOAT.

The most ironic thing out of this entire discussion is that when you look at the start of the thread you'll notice that AEnigma was actually slightly higher on 97 Jordan in the current league than No-more-rings was. This is just one of those cases to let things cool down a bit because this Jordan vs the world stuff has been going on for a while now and hasn't lead to the most healthy discussions.

oh u came in late then. ring first went after kd saying they bias and not rational, eni def kd, then ring offer conspiracy theory, then kd posted a bunch of receipts showin ring being toxic and bias in different threads. idt this a both sides thing tbh. eni be mean sometime, but what kd do

also nah. right now they be arguing peaks and ****. most people talk longevity wit bron but this new wave be all about prime and peak and impact whatever. rings being lower on mj is funny tho

What you're talking about happened after the things I just explained so idk man.

whatever. i see one side make points and the other side flip out, but maybe i miss ****. ill "let it cool" ig.

[mysticOscar]

That brings up my 2nd point. No perimeter player constantly attacked the rim in the 90s like they do today. Majority settled for the midrange back to the basket stuff. Theres a reason for it. The league packed the paint and everybody went for offensive rebounds and guys could put a hand out in the perimeter to slow down there drives.

Perimeter players in the 90s (outside of 3pt savants) were very ineffecient because of these reasons. To suggest that these perimeter players would just hold there rTS% if they played today just underestimate how perimeter friendly the league is today.

I dont mind you disagree, or hold a level of skepticism....but imo someone with his skillset and athleticsm would do better than fine today (much more than in '97).

The stats tell a different story, attempts in the paint in 1997 for some perimeter players:

Code: Select all

             FGA    FG%
Payton      10.7   .570
P.Hardaway   8.1   .556
Sprewell     8.1   .580
Gill         8.0   .525
Jordan       6.8   .515   
Pippen       6.4   .578
Drexler      6.0   .550


Jordan'97 wasn't the best at getting in the paint and wasn't the most efficient even among guards that season. He settled more for midrange shots than other perimeter players. Which had a high value in 1997, but hardly any in 2022. It might be hard to believe to some but Jordan'97 wasn't heads and shoulder above the rest anymore.

That stats lacks so much context that im not sure why you're even bringing that up. Does it have the break down of how many of those scores coming from fast breaks, drives, offensive rebounds, back to the basket shots?

It was well known Payton and Hardaway got a lot of there points from fast breaks and backing there opponents onto the paint along with cutting and PnR plays.

But those type of plays have a limit on perimeter scoring and that's why you don't see perimeters having high usage with high effeciency which was my point and WHERE Jordan was an outlier.

If your aim of your post was to show that MJ slowed down a lot in his 2nd 3peat and cant score close to the rim, then you will have to explain why he was able to get higher % of shots closer to the paint in '98 with better effeciency? Perhaps because his shots were not as effective in '98 that meant he adapted?

But this is besides my point. The game has changed to the 90s. Perimeter players in the 90s generally initiated the offense via inlet pass to the paint where as now the perimeter initiate the offense from the perimeter with the threat of a drive that really opens up the court along with the threat of the 3pt shot.

No perimeter player in the 90s threatened the defense by initiating the offense from the perimeter with the threat of a drive consistently like MJ did in the early 90s (but even MJ in early 90s doesnt cone close to todays perimeters). Because it was just a lot harder and not the right play as it is today (because of the different environment)
.